Conscious sedation by sedation-trained interventionalists versus anesthesia providers in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate choice of perioperative sedation during endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke is unknown. Few studies have evaluated the role of nursing-administered conscious sedation supervised by a trained interventionalist. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke performed with nursing-administered conscious sedation supervised by a trained interventionalist with monitored anesthesia care supervised by an anesthesiologist. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected stroke registry was performed. The primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days, defined as a modified Rankin score of 0-2. Propensity score matching was performed to control for known confounders including patient comorbidities, access type, and direct-to-suite transfers. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients underwent endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion between 2018 and 2022. Thirty five patients were excluded as they arrived at the endovascular suite intubated. Three hundred and twenty patients were included in our study, 155 who underwent endovascular thrombectomy with nursing-administered conscious sedation and 165 who underwent endovascular thrombectomy with monitored anesthesia care. After propensity score matching, there were 111 patients in each group. There was no difference in modified Rankin score 0-2 at 90 days (26.1% vs 35.1%, p = 0.190). Patients undergoing monitored anesthesia care received significantly more vasoactive medications (23.4% vs 49.5%, p < 0.001) and had a lower intraoperative minimum systolic blood pressure (134 vs 123 mmHg, p < 0.046). There was no difference in procedural efficacy, safety, intubation rates, and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Perioperative sedation with nursing-administered conscious sedation may be safe and effective in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke.

Effect of Blood Pressure Management Strategies on Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke After Successful Mechanical Thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: Variability, with no general consensus, exists in how patients' blood pressure should be managed after successful mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large vessel ischemic stroke. We examined whether exceeding the systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets in patients during the first 24 hours after successful MT led to worse outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively studied a consecutive sample of adult patients who had undergone MT. We collected SBP data for the first 24 hours after MT and categorized the patients into 3 groups according to cases of the SBP exceeding 140, 160, or 180 mm Hg. The primary and secondary outcomes were the modified Rankin scale score at discharge and 90 days of follow-up, the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, malignant cerebral edema, and hemicraniectomy, mortality within 90 days, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were included (mean age, 65 ± 13.12 years; 53% female). The occurrence of ≥1 instance of SBP ≥180 mm Hg was significantly associated with poor functional outcomes at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-32.9; P = 0.025) but not at 90 days of follow-up. The occurrence of SBP ≥160 mm Hg resulted in an independently increased odds of malignant cerebral edema (adjusted OR, 17.07; 95% CI, 2.56-174.4; P = 0.01), with a trend toward increased odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.03-21.2; P = 0.0503). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that individual instances of SBP elevation alone after successful MT, rather than a necessarily prolonged increased blood pressure as reflected by the mean or median SBP values, can significantly affect the clinical outcomes after successful MT.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence, Prehospital Evaluation, and Presentation of Ischemic Stroke at a Nonurban Comprehensive Stroke Center.

INTRODUCTION: Many reports have described a decrease in the numbers of patients seeking medical attention for typical emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. These reports primarily relate to urban areas with widespread community transmission. The impact of COVID-19 on nonurban areas with minimal community transmission is less well understood. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained prehospital quality improvement database, we reviewed our hospital EMS transports with a diagnosis of stroke from January to April 2019 (baseline) and January to April 2020 (pandemic). We compared the volume of patients, transport/presentation times, severity of presenting symptoms, and final diagnosis. RESULTS: In January, February, March, and April 2019, 10, 11, 17, and 19 patients, respectively, were transported in comparison to 19, 14, 10, and 8 during the same months in 2020. From January through April 2019, there was a 53% increase in transports, compared to a 42% decrease during the same months in 2020, constituting significantly different trend-line slopes (3.30; 95% CI 0.48-6.12 versus -3.70; 95% CI -5.76--1.64, p = 0.001). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and symptom severity were mostly similar over the two time periods, and the number of patients with a final diagnosis of stroke was also similar. However, the median interval from EMS dispatch to ED arrival for patients with a final diagnosis of stroke was significantly longer in January to April 2020 (50 ± 11.7 min) compared to the same time period in 2019 (42 ± 8.2 min, p = 0.01). Discussion/Conclusion. Our data indicate a decrease in patient transport volumes and longer intervals to EMS activation for suspected stroke care. These results suggest that even in a nonurban location without widespread community transmission, patients may be delaying or avoiding care for severe illnesses such as stroke. Clinicians and public health officials should not ignore the potential impact of pandemic-like illnesses even in areas of relatively low disease prevalence.